English 112 Essay

1. Describe the function of the following pieces of safety equipment and how each might be used: (10 points)

Passions drive people, and the townspeople in “The Lottery” and Paul in “The Rocking-Horse Winner” are no different. Each of the members of the unnamed town has a strong passion for tradition. The original black box used for the lottery is described as being, “lost long ago, and the black box now resting on the stool had been put into use even before Old Man Warner, the oldest man in town, was born” (Jackson 251). This sentence gives the reader an understanding that the lottery is an ancient tradition that has become an integral part of the town’s lifestyle. Such a tradition can only be carried on for this length of time if the people are passionate about preserving the tradition. Paul had a passion to be wealthy as a way to prove to his mother that he was lucky. From a young age, he saw that his family always wanted more money to support a better lifestyle, yet

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

The first of the two stories I chose to compare and contrast is titled “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson and the second story is titled “The Rocking-Horse Winner” by D.H. Lawrence. I will compare each of their themes, characters, and plot developments in which they are both similar and different. One of the strongest comparison would be that both stories deal with the subject of luck in one sense or another. The Lottery being considered a game of chance in which luck plays an important factor in being the chosen winner but Luck in the Lottery has a different twist of fate because the winner of the Lottery is actually the

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

Emily Bazelon, “Why America Should Outlaw Spanking”, Writing in the Displines. A Reader for Writers. 5th ed. Mary Kennedy, William Kennedy, and Hadley Smith. Upper Saddle River.

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

Picture a future where everyone is perfect, where judgment would not exist because no one is ugly, everyone is beautiful and flawless. In this “perfect” world each individual would be gifted in a specific category that they would excel in and go beyond what an average mundane could. This is a possible scenario we may encounter in the future if we allow the research of genetically- modified embryos (GM babies) to continue. Discussed by many, this topic has become increasingly popular. For some people this interests them in the sense that we can become the best versions of ourselves, simply by changing our genes. Another reason people support GM babies is that there is experiments that can prevent babies from being born with genetic health problems. Although the creation of these altered GM babies has some advantages, there are several problems that people must consider before we decide to go ahead with these plans. For example, genetic research will disrupt the natural order, which can lead to designer babies or GM babies born with side effects. The dangers of these experiments will greatly affect the world we live in. We must not rush into the practice of GM babies without letting the populations know the outcomes these GM babies can have in our society. Try to help everyone grasp the definition of GM babies and also explain how experiments on embryo can lead to designer babies.

Though it is evident that the concept of “Designer Babies” would prove unpopular amongst the majority of society, there still remains to be advocates for a future compromising of GM children. It is argued that gene technology will bring about a new age of human beings who are happier, smarter and healthier. Supporters look forward to a future when parents could quite literally assemble their children from genes listed in a catalogue. A future in which the health, appearance, personality and life span of our children become mere artefacts of genetic modification.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

It is a series of genes alongside the strong influence of external factors such as the environment. Nonetheless, technology and science continued to move in the direction of designer babies. Those who support human genetic engineering claim that the science is meant to prevent diseases and encourage more healthy births. They compared the use of gene therapy to prevent genetic diseases to medicine which helps cure it. Professor Lee Silver at Princeton University said, “Some people say we should not go against nature, but that’s illogical because every time we cure a disease we go against nature” (Schicholr, Simonet, and Canano, 2012). The pregnant women from the ABC NEWS study thought picking the traits of a child takes away the surprise. However, other felt different. Supporters claimed that the selection of a child’s genetic pool could be beneficial because parents get to choose how they want their children to be. There will be no surprises and no disappointments. They create the child who they imagine it would be, leading to their perfect family (Resnik, 2012). Everyone wants to be smarter, be more athletic, or better looking and if technology can design babies in such a way then everyone should want genetic engineering as stated by scientist Joe Tsien (Annas).

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

      In the past three decades, scientists have learned how to mix and match characteristics among unrelated creatures by moving genes from one creature to another. This is called “genetic engineering.” Genetic Engineering is prematurely applied to food production. There are estimates that food output must increase by 60 percent over the next 25 years to keep up with demand. Thus, the result of scientist genetically altering plants for more consumption. The two most common methods for gene transfer are biological and electromechanical. “Early experiments all involved changing DNA using bacterial vectors”(Randerson, 2001). Through other advances scientists proclaim how they can improve the human gene pool. All humans have

A bright future with genetically modified superfoods--a world where science fiction comes to life through clones-- a world where sickness and disease have been abolished-- a time when the gender of a child can not only be determined but also it can be selected-- These descriptions explore a time and place that sound like a science fiction movie based in some kind of distant future, but it is not. The time for this miraculous and wondrous technology is now. Human ingenuity and intelligence has soared far above the levels that the human race has ever thought possible; humans are right on the threshold of these and many other genetic engineering and biotechnological advances. Regardless of the limitless possibilities, nay-sayers say the risks far outway the benefits. Critics say that these new advances are far too dangerous and too experimental; however, this tremendously beneficial form of science has the capabilities to progress far beyond thresholds of what the science community previously thought possible. Therefor, this new form of science should be funded and supported by people and the government.